Doctor's Opinion Is Relevant U/S 45 Of Evidence Act But It Can't Take Place Of Substantial Evidence: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) recently observed that the opinion of a doctor is relevant evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but it can rarely take the place of substantive evidence and it cannot be conclusive because it is only opinion evidence.The Bench of Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava observed thus as it dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by one Balli Chaudhary against the order of framing of charges agaisnt him under Sections 307, 34, and 452 of IPC.The case in briefIn brief, facts of the case are that the complaint and his daughter (who was allegedly molested by one Rinku) went to a medical dispensary, (CHC), Bhitarwar and when he was in the injection room, the applicant- accused (Balli Chaudhary) along with other co-accused persons entered the room of the medical dispensary and they inflicted injury on his head by means of the hockey stick.On that basis, FIR was lodged against him, and thereafter, after completion of the investigation and other formalities, challan was filed by the police before the Court below by which, charges under Sections 307/34, 452 of IPC have been framed. Hence, the accused has moved the instant revision.Primarily, it was argued that there was no intention on the part of the applicant to cause the death of the complainant and that as per the opinion of the doctor, the injury caused to the complainant was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, it was argued that no case was made out against the applicant under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.Court's orderAt the outset, the Court referred to various rulings of the Supreme Court including in the case of Soma Chakravarti Vs. State, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 403, to observe that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. So far as the contention of the applicant that the doctor had not opined that the injury was of such nature and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature was concerned, the Court said that this contention is also not acceptable. "Although the opinion of doctor is relevant in view of provisions of Section 45 of Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive. The opinion of doctor is an evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and it cannot be conclusive because it is after all opinion evidence," the Court added.The Court noted that in the instant case, applicant along with other co-accused persons with common intention reached the spot, i.e. the medical dispensary and the applicant has inflicted injury on the head of the complainant by means of the hockey stick, and this is fully supported by medical evidence and evidence of witnesses. Lastly, noting that it is established that at the time of framing of charges, there is no scope to appreciate the entire evidence in detail and that the Court below has examined the case and found a prima facie case against the applicant by which charges have been framed against him, therefore, the Court dismissed the instant revision plea.Case title - Balli Chaudhary alias Rakesh v. State of MP Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 20Click Here To Read/download Order

Doctor's Opinion Is Relevant U/S 45 Of Evidence Act But It Can't Take Place Of Substantial Evidence: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags